Taurus Firearm Forum banner

Toward Valuing A Handgun: A Simple Measurement 8 Guns 9 Variables

4K views 22 replies 9 participants last post by  john_bud 
#1 · (Edited)
Text Line Font Parallel Number


Value, as used here, is simply the price of the gun/capacity. This is a measure of the initial cost per round for the firearm.
Of course, there is more to value of a firearm than this simple ratio but it does provide a starting point to compare relative
values and value to a firearm. Certainly, longevity, reliability, number of rounds fired before major repairs are needed as well as
aesthetic value, pride of ownership and comfort would come into play in determining value. But the data is not readily available
on these variables, so we shall do with what we have and see where this simple ratio takes us.

The average cost per round for these 8 pistols is $50.34. If we use this figure we can see that the average pistol, by this measure
is a better buy than your average revolver. If the revolver were priced on a similar level as these pistols the average 5 shot revolver
would cost $251.70. Good luck finding a new revolver at that price.

The four most expensive guns average $60.83 per round. Applying the same logic and cost per initial round would price the more
expensive revolvers at $304.15.

The four least expensive pistols based on initial price and capacity average $39.85 per round.
The four least expensive guns average out to $379.50 while the four most expensive pistols average $563 (48% more than the less expensive pistols).

The PT111 Millennium Generation 2 stands out as an attractive buy that might be able to do double duty as a concealed carry
and a home defense gun. It should be noted, and I was surprised to see, that the gun is wider than the Glock – which has
a well deserved reputation as being chunky.

One use of this table is to select a variable, for example width and find those guns that are less than an inch thick. That results in
a comparison of four guns - Shield, LC9, 709 and the Kahr. Three of the four guns are pretty much on the same value level, as used here.
The Kahr is significantly more expensive so the question is...is the cost difference made up in the other characteristics of the firearm?

As I see it the value of the table is related to the comparisons that can be made and additional questions raised in selecting
a firearm.

Studying this table has me rethinking some ideas I had about which firearm I wanted to buy. Some of the intangibles mentioned in
reviews on youtube, in forums and articles is making some decisions easier and other considerations needing to be evaluated on a
subjective leve have made me ask additional questions. In any case, for me this has been a useful exercise.
 
See less See more
1
#3 · (Edited)
Right...and to the extent one can quantify those and other things we can come up with a crude measurement of the desirability of those attributes that make up the gun. Of course, the sum of the parts may or may not be greater than the whole. Some variables may be some overwhelmingly important that they over ride other considerations.

Chico, as you point out that you know what you value you can judge how much weight to give the variables listed. And based on your knowledge you know which guns don't meet your criteria. So what is left is the pool of eligible guns that meet your requirements. On that basis one can differentiate and select the gun that most meets one's needs.

This is just a simple attempt at pointing out how one can systematically go about the process of selection/deselection. By thinking this way we can see that we need more information to be provided to us by the gun manufacturers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasAviator
#6 ·
One of my pet peeves...guns that come only with one magazine. I think the gun community should put pressure on manufactures to provide a minimum of two magazines (some manufacturers provide 3 - very responsible).
 
#7 ·
I question a few of your numbers. For instance, I know my PT-111 MP slide is not as wide as a Glock 26 slide (as I have made holsters for both), and the MP-G2 is supposed to have a thinner slide than my MP. The most width on my MP is actually in the frame where it meets the slide. Dollar figures are way off from my current local costs and I guess that is to be expected. For instance, the Kahr CM-9 is going for $350, the 709 Slim for $300, and the S&W M&P Compact for $450 in my local area, here in the foothills of north Alabama.
 
#8 · (Edited)
...The PT111 Millennium Generation 2...It should be noted...is wider than the Glock – which has a well deserved reputation as being chunky...
Two hundreds of an inch, 1.20 vs. 1.18, isn't that much of a difference in width and isn't the total tale of the "Chunky" grip story.

When one factors in the "fore & aft" measurments of the grip, the GLOCK feels like a piece of scrap 2X4 wood in one's hand while the much more ergonomically designed Taurus feels like it was molded to your hand.:icon_ banana::icon_ lala::icon_ banana:
 
#9 ·
I think the most important factors are left out. How does it fit your hand and how does it shoot? I do like the analytical process, perhaps to eliminate contenders. The table gives a nice comparison of specs. I relate specs to cars sometimes though, who cares if a car has 300 hp if the clutch sucks and the suspension rides like covered wagon. Gimme 200 hp and a slick shifting racer on rails.
 
#11 ·
There are other things that go into the selection of a pistol that aren't in the table. Stuff like accuracy, perceived recoil, magazine disconnects, mode of operation (DAO, SA, SA/DA), durability, or even warranty length. Some things you don't find out until you actually shoot a firearm, and I'm still of the opinion that there's no substitute for trying before you buy. Tables are useful, but they're just one tool. Getting my hands on them before buying is still a requirement for me - and preferably on the range.
 
#14 ·
Absolutely correct. What you put together takes time and is very valuable at narrowing the field. With all of the options out there now (a luxury problem) this is not an easy process, especially if you are willing to consider multiple calibers. Thanks for the format, I may be using as a start when shopping for a 1911... hmmm now to start filling in a table
 
#13 ·
I too am a numbers guy and do the same thing when buying a gun. I put down all the things I can come with on each gun to be considered. I have never determined a way to compare those stats in the form of a chart that when added up, it creates a number value to assign to each gun. I guess I am just not that smart! I always have little side notes on the things that others have mentioned that can give one gun a plus one way or another and that too helps me decide - kind of like getting extra credit on a project in school. Once I narrow it done, I do like to go to the range and rent one if available. Shooting tops all the numbers I can come up with. I like the chart and think it can be very helpful when you look at the data it presents. Thanks for sharing it with us. Very interesting.
 
#17 ·
Unfortunately, MSRP is useless here in CT right now. I saw a USED PT111 gen 1 or 2 (no dovetails) with 1 10 round mag selling for ... wait for it... $499.99 just a couple of weeks ago. Price non-negotiable. This was at the same LGS where I bought a used PT111 3rd Gen with 2 mags for $180.00 in July.

I won't go back there anytime soon.
 
#18 ·
Nothing like being customer friendly!
 
#19 ·
Pardon my ignorance, I'm rather new to owning a pistol and seriously considering a pt111 g2 for my next in the next few days... I would love to fire it first, before buying it. I couldn't do that with my sig and I regret that to a certain extent. The pt111 g2 would be my edc so I'm wary of purchasing without even holding it let alone firing. Not a single gunshop in my area even has one, and none rent for firing anyway. Just my area or a sign of the times?
 
#20 ·
My guess is that the way inexpensive "high cap" handguns are flying off the shelves right now makes a dealer not want to use a gun for rent when he can sell it for a huge profit, especially a new model in 9mm. You may have to wait a while to fire one at a range or LGS taht rents. Depending on where you are, you may be able to get someone on here to let you shoot it. If I had one and you were local, you could fire mine, assuming you paid for a beer or 3 afterwards!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mtlissner
#21 ·
Value, as used here, is simply the price of the gun/capacity.
While an interesting chart and "calculation", it does leave me feeling flat.


The purchase price of a weapon is essentially meaningless (as long as you can actually buy it!).
The "value" of a weapon is in my mind related to other factors.

1) Will you actually have it on your person in a ready to use fashion when needed?
2) When needed, can you actually hit the intended target squarely -- and ONLY the intended target?
3) Will the intended target actually be incapacitated quickly such that they are no longer a threat when so struck one or 2 times?

There are other ancillary factors that can be brought to bear also such as physical dimensions, weight, features like manual safeties, mag capacity, night sights, etc etc, but in general the 3 gross factors are what I think of about for concealed carry weapons.

You will note that none of them have any relationship to the purchase price. IN fact, for guns that are actually used the price of ammo far exceeds the price of the weapon over the lifetime of that weapon. Even a small light sub-compact weapon like a 709 or 740 has an expectation of 20-50,000 rounds. That puts the ammo cost at well over 10-20x the weapon's purchase price!
 
#22 ·
I think a lot of people would disagree with you about purchase price. There are an a lot of posts that deal with budgetary constraints and weapon selection. Availability of a weapon for sale is another question as we can see in today's market.

Value is and has been a difficult economic concept...that is why I reduced it down to operationally defining it as initial cost per round. Not necessarily the best definition but one that is easily understood. On a more complex level we all agree that value is multidimensional and heavily influenced by personal subjective considerations.

Of the three factors that you mention related to value of a weapon very little has to do with weapon selection and value:

Factor 1 having it on your person and ready to use is more a function of commitment to carry and proper training and maintenance protocols.
Factor 2 deals with marksmanship which is a matter of practice. Adequate SD accuracy at typical distances is less a function of the gun than the shooter.
Factor 3 again marksmanship + cartridge selection and to a minor extent barrel length

I do agree with you that with a committed shooter ammo costs will exceed the cost of most guns. For those that buy a gun and seldom practice with it, the cost of the gun is likely to be more expensive than the amount of ammo purchased.

Sorry that the chart leaves you flat but I have found some utility to it. I won't bother burdening additional comparison that can be made - of which for my own amusement by color coding some of the variables reveals some interesting patterns at the extremes as well as choices to be made for less extreme choices.

Perhaps, the more important point in this little exercise I undertook is the realization we in the gun community should probably ask for more information from the gun manufacturers. Information they have but choose not to publish. An educated/informed consumer can make better choices. Over time the more enlightened manufacturers will respond to pressure placed on them by a more informed/demanding consumer.

Thanks for your input...it made me think.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top